mspaintadventuresfandomcom-20200224-history
Forum:Canonicity policy
Starting with the Epilogues, some very heated debates rose up with regards to canonicity, as it was very unclear what exactly "dubious canonicity" means with regards to our coverage. But lo, the clouds parted, and Homestuck^2 arrived, with a shining statement that... actually, was still kind of vague. But what it did do is make clear that this is intentional. The unambiguous purpose of the post-Canon (which is to say, collectively, the Epilogues and Homestuck^2) is to challenge the very notion of canonicity. And that means we have an opportunity to finally try and settle this and form a coherent policy founded on the idea that there is more than one variety of canonicity. What I suggest to start with is this: below are a few headings marking out key points to discuss. Under each one, users should post their views, generally without reference to the views posted by others – the idea at this stage is not to debate the positions yet. Nor is this any kind of vote. It is simply a chance for various viewpoints to be aired in a non-competitive manner. Once we have accumulated a variety of views, we can look at distilling them down into positions that can, hopefully, be more precisely debated. This phase will come at a slightly later stage. You can also suggest new points to be discussed, if you think there's something missing. Users are, of course, welcome to discuss these matters on the Discord as well, but bear in mind that nothing discussed there is binding for policy matters – remember to come back here when you're ready to state your views! And, of course, you can edit your posts, too, if you change your mind (just update your timestamp if you do) Handling of canonicity in general *I believe the best way to handle varying canonicities is to have subpages for each variety of canon as applied to the subject of the article. These subpages will likely later be transcluded as the content of tabs on the main article, in a similar manner to e.g. Wookieepedia with its "Canon" and "Legends" tabs, but that's an implementation detail, not a policy detail. The base article will be solely for information that is canon to Homestuck (or whichever other base media the subject is from, e.g. Joey's base article will obviously be for Hiveswap, not Homestuck); the subpages then act as supplements or modifications to that information. We thus separate out the stuff that is "definitely canon" from the "this stuff is optionally canon and it's up to the reader to decide whether they accept it" *I largely agree with the above, with the proviso that the subpage (or possibly later the alternate tab, although I am a little unsure about this format - would we be able to specifically link to one of the two tabs?) should likely also have a header with a brief summary of the post/alternate canon content, and a link to the main subpage, as per my "In Additional Media" proposal. As I'd said in the Discord, that would probably be renamed to "Post-Canon", but the concept would remain the same. This is generally because I don't want to completely separate canon and post-Canon content. While some of the content can be regarded as in a sense "optional", if it is included it does still consist a continuous narrative with the canon material, and not a distinct one. I guess I'd still keep in little headers point at a subpage, but with a clear notation that such material is dubiously canon. This would also avoid tricky issues like not warning the reader when linking from a canon page, to a page for, say, a Pesterquest volume, where "post-canon" would be the default. Not acknowledging the existence of such content in the main articles could be confusing if the reader then wanders into another part of the wiki. I'm unsure where Pesterquest would feature in this, as I'm not sure whether it qualifies as post-Canon, or just an alternate timeline/canon, so it's up for debate whether Pesterquest content for, say, John, could largely just go under a subheader on his own page. BlackholeWI (talk) 02:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC) *Perhaps we could separate out each alternate appearance similar to how pre and post-scratch pages work, considering how each timeline has begun to differentiate in different ways. As much as it would be simple to put Pesterquest content under the kids' main pages, it would make more sense to make a new page since that timeline has already changed substantially from the main one. You could make the title something along the lines of John Egbert/Pesterquest or whatever version you put in, and then go and link each timeline on the main page under Alternate Johns. Better yet, make disambiguation pages for each character. It definitely makes more sense, at least to me, to keep those all separate, but have a way to link them together. The best example I can make are the pages for main characters on the Marvel Database like this one. Brawlitup99 (talk) 00:37, November 2, 2019 (UTC) *I definitely think the simplest and most user-friendly option is to just use two categories for "canons", "In Homestuck" (or "In Homestuck and Hiveswap", or "In Canon", or whatever nomenclature one ends up wanting to use) and "In Other Canons" (or "Outside Homestuck" or "Outside Canon" etc etc ad nausaeum). I'd argue that the Marvel wiki is actually a terrible example of how to handle this kind of issue. At the end of the day, alternate timeline versions of characters are a fundamental aspect of Homestuck, and opting to add whole new pages for a whole bunch of them is just going to open a very sour can of worms. I know in-text a "canon" and a "timeline" are soooort of treated like different things, but the principle is the same; while the John Egbert in Pesterquest and in the Homestuck Epilogues may have experienced some different events, much of their lives were also the same, and it would be far easier on wiki users (who are, at the end of things, the people we should be considering the most) for these different lives to be documented as if they were alternate versions of the same life. More of an implementation thing than a policy thing, and it's a sort of different situation, but I think the Sonic wiki pages about comic book characters pre- and post-reboot handle this kind of issue quite gracefully; pages about characters from the post-reboot comics (example) simply include a disclaimer that Note: From the reader's point of view, this picks up from where ended. JakeMorph (talk) 04:44, November 5, 2019 (UTC) Handling of specific categories of canonicity Official Post-Canon material Anything pertaining to the officially published content of the Epilogues and Homestuck^2 *I think that information from Post-Canon should be separated out as a supplemental extension, and not affect information that is canon to Homestuck. For example, throughout Homestuck canon, Roxy identifies as female, therefore her base article would use female pronouns throughout. In Post-Canon, Roxy transitions, and we would therefore use they/them pronouns throughout Roxy's Post-Canon subpage *I think that perhaps this is not the best way to handle Roxy's pronouns. I personally am still on the page of they/them for Roxy across the board, I think. My rationale would be that, because there are multiple canons that the reader could accept (or not accept), then there is no "definite" pronoun for Roxy which will be applicable across the wiki, with the exception perhaps of the epilogue articles post-transition. Reading content prior to or external to that, it's still sort of "up for grabs" whether or not Roxy will transition, in a schrodinger's cat sort of way. (Man, Homestuck is weird). Therefore, using they/them to not imply any specific gender makes sure that all content is consistent with itself. That said, I'm sure other people will have other opinions on this... BlackholeWI (talk) 02:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC) *Am definitely of the opinion that Roxy's pronouns should be 'they' across all articles concerning them. As long as the pre-Epilogues page acknowledges ''somewhere that for the duration of ''Homestuck ''Roxy referred to themself with 'she/her' pronouns it shouldn't be an issue. JakeMorph (talk) 04:44, November 5, 2019 (UTC) Official alternate-canon material '''Anything that is officially published content, but is not canon to Homestuck, such as Pesterquest' *Material that intersects with but diverges directly from Homestuck canon, such as Pesterquest, is clearly incompatible with the canon of Homestuck proper. The subpage for such information would therefore be a wholesale alternative to the canon information, referring to it only where relevant. This is a case I see no real complexities with *Still not sure whether this should get its own subpage or tab. I'm wary of having three or four different versions of a character page, it could hinder cohesion. I... Guess I'm still sort of split on whether I'm sold on entirely splitting the wiki into multiple almost distinct versions based on different canons, or whether we treat it more like, we have ledes/summaries for a lot the post canon stuff on the main pages, with an acknowledgement or banner explaining their status, and then just put the detailed explanations on the subpage... That solution sounds more cohesive to me, although the tabs thing has its advantages in its own ways. I'm wavering between one and the other, honestly. BlackholeWI (talk) 02:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC) *Like I said a couple sections above, I don't see why we can't just consider Pesterquest an 'alternate timeline' for the sake of page creation and put it under a subheader as we would with stuff like GAME OVER that for the purposes of the comic would also be considered a 'different canon'. JakeMorph (talk) 04:44, November 5, 2019 (UTC) Material not officially published Anything outside of official published media, including tweets and other social media (even from Hussie) *Since it seems apparent that Hussie's overall intention with Post-Canon is to reinforce the Death of the Author, and especially given that he is not the sole author of material surrounding Homestuck, it seems clear to me that anything Hussie says outside of official material is not regarded as any variety of canon unless and until it later gets confirmed by official media. We should still make note of it, as Hussie remains the most highly notable person in this wiki's scope, but things he says on social media – such as confirming all fantrolls to be canon or supporting the idea of June Egbert – should not be integrated into the main content* of articles without official media backing, though we will still cover them as statements and topics of interest. Furthermore, under the proposed subpage system, we would not expect such information to be integrated into the main content of the base article for a subject even if it becomes officially backed, as Homestuck's canon is complete, and such official media backing is likely to be in one of the other varieties of canon. I am also aware that a policy like this would potentially have retroactive effects on some information that is currently regarded as canon on the wiki! For example, anything that we were previously told via Hussie's Formspring or Tumblr would potentially become questionably canon, and the resulting question of whether stuff he said during Homestuck's run is subject to slightly different rules is, I think, something best discussed in more detail at a later debate stage *I largely agree. I think that most things Hussie has said in a context where he seems to be clearly commenting on Homestuck's canon, in the past, can be trusted. I think we can differentiate between that and some of the "post-Canon" musings he and other creators say now, and these can be placed according to what seems best on a case-by-case basis (I would imagine usually in a trivia section unless it also appears in an official work). BlackholeWI (talk) 02:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC) *I think in terms of viewing the wiki as a tool for people who want to find stuff out about the Homestuck universe, it's important that we ''do ''document comments from Andrew (and other relevant authors)! Obviously we don't need to / shouldn't present authorial commentary as definitively canon, but as long as the wiki text makes it clear that it the comments being referenced are authorial and not textual, there shouldn't be a problem. (This specific point is part of why I've mentioned in the Discord server that the wiki perhaps needs to beef up on its referencing and citations). JakeMorph (talk) 04:44, November 5, 2019 (UTC) Anything missing? If you think there's a category of discussion missing from the above sections, say so here, and we'll examine the suggestions.